[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement

[Mike Burns]

Hi Fernando,



I don't get the point in your posting below, can you be more concise so that I can address it?



Regards,
Mike








---- On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 18:47:00 -0400 Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote ----



Well, it seems that leasing practices are not that popular among 
community and tentatives to change the rules to make it easier or more 
soft to those who focus on these practices will not be something that 
may happen anytime soon.
So despite what some people say that "That´s a normal practice we cannot 
go back and have to accept because is already done" is not exactly like 
that.

We should actually endeavor to have good policies that make sure 
resources go to those who *really* have justification even if that 
involves a transfer via the market, but the important point is that the 
the relationship remains directly between the organization and ARIN and 
not with an intermediary in the middle.

Fernando

Em 21/09/2021 16:25, Isaiah Olson escreveu:
> I am opposed to this proposal and would in fact like to see a policy 
> proposal that strengthens the requirement to provide actual network 
> services in order to receive additional address space. I agree that 
> the current policy is unclear and possibly causing confusion for ARIN 
> staff processing transfers when leasing is involved, and that updating 
> it to prevent abuse of resources without affecting operational 
> networks is a complex task. Despite the difficulty, I hope the 
> community can converge on a proposal to that end. Questions of fig 
> leaves and fraudulent intent are best left to the courts to interpret, 
> but there cannot be accountability for fraud without clear policy.
>
> In relation to this particular proposal, I would ask the community to 
> consider the consequences of implementation. Some have suggested that 
> the current policy can be evaded with simple "fig leaves" to present 
> the illusion of the provision of network services. I am not so sure. 
> Under the current policy, I would certainly not be comfortable 
> requesting an additional /23 or /22 from the waiting list for "VPN 
> Services" and proceeding to lease that space out to be announced 
> elsewhere while maintaining a VPN link for appearances. If this policy 
> were to be adopted, there would be absolutely nothing fraudulent about 
> requesting a /22 for the purposes of leasing it to be announced on 
> completely unrelated networks. Given the dozens of emails that I have 
> received in the last several months offering to buy or lease my 
> current IPv4 block, I am confident that I could immediately find 
> lessees and be ready to request additional space from ARIN as soon as 
> the six month waiting period has expired. Further, as it has been 
> recently pointed out, this economies of scale only get better as you 
> obtain more and more space, as my fees would cap out quickly at 
> $2000/year in around two years which is easily subsidized with the 
> leasing revenue from 4,096+ addresses. I am uncomfortable with the 
> idea that anyone with the time to set up a corporation whose business 
> model is "holding IPv4 resources and leasing them out" could 
> effectively loot the waiting list for thousands of addresses in a 
> couple short years. Given the current price explosion in the IPv4 
> transfer market, I feel that this risk posed by this proposal to the 
> integrity of the waiting list is very tangible. Additionally, basic 
> economics of supply and demand show that opening up the transfer 
> market for speculation and investment without requiring even the 
> appearance of an operational network has the potential to cause prices 
> to skyrocket to even more absurd levels.
>
> Lastly, I also agree with others that the actual proposed policy 
> language is flawed, "users of the network" is incredibly vague and 
> it's unclear whether "network" refers to the Internet shared resource 
> as a whole (global DFZ) or any network.
>
> Isaiah Olson
> Olson Tech, LLC
>
>> Policy statement:
>>
>>
>> Replace
>>
>>
>> “2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR) A Local Internet Registry (LIR) 
>> is an IR that primarily assigns address space to the users of the 
>> network services that it provides. LIRs are generally Internet 
>> Service Providers (ISPs), whose customers are primarily end users and 
>> possibly other ISPs.”
>>
>>
>> with
>>
>>
>> “2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR) A Local Internet Registry (LIR) 
>> is an IR that primarily assigns address space to users of the 
>> network. LIRs are generally Internet Service Providers (ISPs), whose 
>> customers are primarily end users and possibly other ISPs.”
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact mailto:info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact mailto:info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210921/dd3c6118/attachment.htm>